On this business of the Garda and Army, or others unidentified having powers of stopping and arresting—I do not differentiate between them one way or the other —I take particular exception to it and will in no circumstances abide by it myself. Section 2 states:
A member of the Garda Síochána (on production of his identification card, if demanded, where he is not in uniform) may without a warrant stop, search, question and arrest any person, or do any one or more of those things in respect of any person, if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, or an offence which is for the time being a a scheduled offence for the purposes of Part V of that Act, or if he suspects with reasonable cause that that person is carrying any document or other article or thing, or is in possession of information, relating to the commission or intended commission of the offence.
A person can be stopped by a non-uniformed person of whatever force. This is what I say is so damnably dangerous and it shows the stupidity and lack of knowledge of the real situation for those of us who are close enough to the Border to know what is going on.
I will totally and completely disregard an order to stop in or near the Border area if the person giving the order is not clearly identifiable as a member of our own security forces. I say this because it is at one's peril that one stops in those regions. I prefer to face the consequences of such action rather than to take what might be my lot if I should stop. I am quite sure that the great majority of the people I represent and those living in the Border areas will see the absolute folly of what is being proposed here. It is not only dangerous but there is the risk that people may be hijacked on and around the Border areas or, for that matter, in any part of the country. I am sure that the Minister for Defence. Deputy Donegan, who is a close neighbour of the Border himself, is bound to be aware of what I am saying. This measure is so dangerous that it will set people up. This facility is being offered under the guise of this Bill, unintentionally no doubt, in ignorance and in stupidity, but it is nevertheless unforgivable.
Regarding the proposed detention for seven days, I requested the Ceann Comhairle that this should be explained to those of us who do not understand why it is needed. Another speaker has asked: what is it that one can expect to get from a person detained for seven days that one cannot get from him in 48 hours? I ask that question again. What useful purpose is served by seven days? The Taoiseach spoke last night about things being so complicated throughout the country that it is necessary to hold somebody because he might interfere with somebody else that they are trying to get after. That is a bit far-fetched. It is not an answer to the genuine question—why seven days' detention?
Why, also, the provision that a person so arrested, so detained, may be removed to and kept in custody in a Garda station, prison or other convenient place? Is the reference to "some other convenient place" merely a convenient way of ensuring that it is not known, to anybody outside the immediate security forces, where a detainee is within the seven days of his detention? Is that the purpose of it? Is it designed to conceal from anybody concerned with the person so detained where he might be? Are we to take it as well that all the rights of the person detained are withdrawn? Has he no right to communicate with family, friends, solicitor, business associates or anybody else? Is that so? This would appear to be the situation. Why is that sort of treatment necessary? Why will it be necessary to deny the natural and normal rights of anybody in detention?
It is an absolutely disgraceful situation that we are going to utilise the powers conferred in this phoney national emergency in legislation such as this. We are going to deny the basic fundamental rights of people who may be detained, innocent or guilty, though the great majority will be innocent. They will be denied any communication with the outside world. We are not given to understand that the authorities will be obliged to convey to the detainee's family that he is, in fact, in detention. It is madness in these circumstances to expect the public to go along with that.
There was talk about the similarity, or the lack of similarity, between now and the previous declaration of emergency in 1939. There was no doubt in 1939 that there was a real emergency. There was no disputation in a real sense within the Houses of the Oireachtas as to the declaration of that state of emergency. There were no fears expressed as to the validity of the intentions of the Government of the day and what they might do, how they might abuse or misuse what powers would become available to them under the Constitution as a result of the declaration of an emergency. The main thing was that there was no division among our representatives at that time. Immediately thereafter we had the unusual situation of politicians from both sides of this House on the same platforms—I do not mean political platforms—pushing the idea of joining the local defence forces and so on. In other words, they knew it was an emergency and there was no division among the representatives and no division in the public mind. That is the difference between that situation and the present situation.
We genuinely seek guidance as to how there is an emergency in this country. Without that, even going back before the resolution was passed yesterday, is there a possibility that the Constitution can be invoked as to the validity of the motion rather than, as is laid down, that it may not be invoked in respect of any laws passed thereunder? I have not sufficient expert legal knowledge to know if that is so, but it seems to me to be a sensible reading of the situation. The lack of reasons for which we passed the motion yesterday must come into place somewhere as far as the Constitution is concerned, even if we go no further than the Article under which we are relying for those powers.
All these measures are tied together. I admit we are not being fair but we cannot avoid talking about the motion which has already been passed and the Bill which is yet to come. Perhaps a constitutional lawyer might have a look at this. Is there no basis on which declarations made as a result of motions being passed here must conform to some norm? We cannot say : "This is an emergency. Let us pass it and tell the Seanad to do the same." This in effect, is being done.
If there was more than a Government simple majority in both Houses and if these measures were passed by a two-thirds majority, it could be taken as a fair consensus of opinion that a state of emergency did exist. Here we have a very dangerous situation. We have a Government-dictated majority in this House and in the Seanad. While Government-dictated majorities are a necessary part of the way in which we operate this democracy, on this vital issue the simple majority, dictated by the Government, is dicey, and something should be done about it. If nothing can be done under the Constitution in regard to yesterday's motion, we should be thinking about tomorrow, the day after and even the year after. A Government-dictated simple majority can declare a national emergency when none exists simply by the Government telling their followers in both Houses to vote for their motions.
The seven-day detention period is very questionable. Why are seven days so important? What can the gardaí find out from a suspect in seven days that could not be found out after 48 hours, unless it is a wearing down process? If so, the five extra days are very important. It is not unusual for a man to be released after 48 hours and be very quickly apprehended again. We already have in existence the practice of a four-day period of detention for interrogation. The two-day detention period can go on indefinitely. Of course, recourse might be had to a higher court but by the time it met and decided on the case many days would have elapsed and the operation would have been concluded.
The unbroken period of seven days may have a sinister meaning. Is that so? I have to ask these provocative questions. Because I am asking these questions reasonably and sensibly no attempt is being made to answer them. Although I represent quite a small group, as a Member of this House I am entitled to equal consideration as any other Member. I get it when it suits the Government but I am also denied it when it suits them. In regard to this type of question, it obviously does not suit them to accord to me the rights of a Deputy, that is, answers to reasonable questions put to the Government or their spokesmen. Again, I ask why seven days?
Why must there be secret places of custody? Will any rights be accorded to people detained for seven days in places other than Garda barracks or prisons? In such institutions one could, by inquiry, find out where the man had been sent. Will we get these answers or will this measure be bulldozed through with a big splash in the papers that it was passed by so many votes? If the public are not informed about the laws, why they are there, why they deny the elementary rights of the population, you will not and cannot expect to get co-operation from the people. Indeed, far from co-operation you will get obstruction. If the Government are really convinced that a state of emergency exists and if they have talked themselves into believing this, they should tell the Members of this House and the public just why these measures were introduced and how they will be used. Any assurances given must be based on the wording of the laws that are going to be passed by a head count in due time. There is no assurance at present. A great deal has been omitted. This gives rise to concern as to what abuses there may be. It is the Government's duty to explain what has been written into this measure and to tell us of their proposals to ensure that the rights of individuals are not trampled on in this phoney situation.
Is it possible that the seven days' detention can be repetitive? If a person has been detained for seven days without being charged and is then released, is there anything to prevent further detention by a different garda? Some other garda—and there are thousands of gardaí—may have different ideas and could be waiting to catch a person who has just been released after seven days.
I suggest that this legislation is ill-conceived. It has not been demonstrated to be necessary. It should not be given approval by this House. I believe, as many Members on that side of the House believed many years ago, that we have more than enough law. Before 1972 I remember Fine Gael waxing eloquent in their condemnation of the then Government for not doing enough with the existing laws. They charged that Government with not operating the existing laws to the full. When the laws were being strengthened in 1972 the Fine Gael spokesmen who derided Fianna Fáil for not utilising the pre-1972 laws and who opposed the new laws on that basis are now saying that none of these laws, including the additions in 1972, is sufficient, that they want all this as well.
We should be given a better explanation than the one given to us by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs regarding his conversion. I do not mind his conversion. That is a matter between himself and his conscience. It seems to satisfy him but it did not convince me. Surely some other Government members can give us an explanation for this staggering change. We are entitled to an explanation for this late conversion. I believe, as I did pre-1972 and as I did after the 1972 enactment, that there are enough laws and that it is not on the Statute Book that we are going to secure the safety of our people or the preservation of our State. That cannot be done by writing more laws. Security will not be better as a result of these laws. Side by side with our belief of there being no improvement as a result of these laws, we must take into consideration that any infringement of the rights of the ordinary people would be on the negative side. In other words, the disadvantages are clear but the advantages have not been shown. A proper explanation has not been attempted by any of the front bench spokemen, with the exception of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, of the overwhelming conversions of the members of the Government who want these laws. Any explanation must take into account today's situation.
The situation today is not as dangerous as it was then on that front, that is, if we are sticking to the public safety and the preservation of the State, and the dangers through war or armed rebellion, whether within the State or outside of it. In my estimation there is danger, but it is not under this heading. It is under other headings such as our general chaotic economic position which cannot be dealt with under Article 28 of the Constitution. Perhaps what may arise from it will have to be dealt with under that. Perhaps the Government are even more far-sighted than I credit them with, and perhaps they are looking ahead. Perhaps they see this danger coming and they are using the situation in the Six Counties as an umbrella to get these measures through in anticipation of trouble which they see around the corner because of the disastrous economic situation, unemployment, the money situation. Perhaps that is what it is all about. Time will tell.
On foot of yesterday's performance passing the motion saying there is a state of emergency, there is a national emergency, the Government should give us every possible bit of information and knowledge they have in regard to the operation of this extraordinary piece of legislation which is under consideration at the moment. I would ask the Government speaker who will close this debate to please give us some information. We have been denied it up until now. Reasonable questions have gone unanswered. They are being asked again and I hope they will be answered. There is no excuse for ignoring questions legitimately and reasonably asked about reasonable subjects. There is no excuse for the Government to deny us that information, particularly when it is in the furtherance of their own proposal that the information is being sought.
I would ask the Minister for Defence, who is in the House at the moment, to try to influence whoever will be speaking for the Government later on to give us some of the answers which were not given yesterday, and to answer the questions that have been asked today, not just to satisfy me but because they are being asked by the public. They should be given some indication of what is intended, and how it is proposed to operate these measures. We should be given some assurance that the very dangerous provision that members of the Defence Forces out of uniform can stop one on the road at any time will be scrubbed. Detention for seven days and then a repetition of that should be clarified. We should know the rights of persons who are detained and who they may communicate with: their families so that they can inform them where they are, their solicitor to defend them against any charges, their medical practitioner in the case of someone who may not be well although that may not be apparent. All these things are absolutely essential. The Government will be very remiss in their duty to the House and to the public if they do not give us all that information. It will be to their own loss in the long run, not that I am concerned about their loss. Indeed, I hope to add to it anywhere and everywhere I can. That goes without saying.
At the same time, that is no reason why I should be ignored in this House when I ask questions. I am trying to be reasonable in my approach, and I take a very poor view of being ignored particularly after the recent by-election in north-east Donegal. It may have been said since 1973 that I was a lone voice here. I am not alone any more. I did not come in here on a sympathy vote in 1973. We did not win the by-election on sympathy in 1976. Some cognisance should be taken of the fact that out of three seats in north-east Donegal, I and my colleague hold two of them, one won in a by-election in a straight conflict with the two major parties. I do not think that should be sneezed at. The Government may try to ignore it and hope it will go away but it will not, no more than the troubles in the Six Counties have gone away despite the fact that they have ignored them in various ways for quite a long time. Nor will they go away as a result of this big bruhaha about the great fellows we are here and what we are doing. I will not say what I think about what they are doing, but I want the Government spokesman this evening to say what is being done, how it is being done and how it is proposed to be done, and particularly what the safeguards for the public are. We are entitled to that. I ask the Minister for Defence to try to prevail on whoever will be replying to the debate on Second Stage to help us all by clarifying these matters before the next Stage of the Bill, particularly for the benefit of the public whose vital interests are concerned.
